Why RCTs? Part 2

Why Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)?

Pt. 2: Hormone Replacement Therapy

This is Part 2 in a series called “Why RCTs?” which explores experiences with and without the benefit of randomized study across disciplines. In case you weren’t shocked enough by the robot babies account from last week, this blog post explores another catastrophic outcome, this time in the medical field. This time, the RCT produced results drastically different from those in prior observational studies, causing the medical community to reconsider long-held beliefs about the benefits of a treatment for cancer patients.

RCTs can fill in data one might not even know is missing, and reveal critical issues with previous research methods. The WHI’s RCT “changed abruptly” the use of hormone replacement therapy and is now no longer as recommended for women as it used to be. We need RCTs to understand what interventions work and what do not, especially when the stakes are this high. It is understandable to be concerned at first with randomizing in the law and tinkering with the type of representation litigants receive, especially when this representation may have a profound impact on clients’ lives. But unless we conduct rigorous evaluation, we cannot know what legal services are helping people with their serious, life-changing issues. As long as research is conducted ethically, sensitive and important issues are where we need rigorous evaluation the most.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.